It is the time of year for the various websites to
select their best bloggers of the year. In the new category of best
independent civil reporter, the winner is consistently the microblogger
Lao Rong ("Old Banyan"). He gained fame this year by going to Libya
on his own to cover the uprising that eventually toppled the dictator
Qadaffi. He sent frequent reports and photos from the battlefield.
However, another microblogger has carefully gone through his account and
found many instances of plagiarism. Specifically, Lao Rong was using
photos taken by others and adding his own narrative.

Here is Southern Weekly's tribute to him as one who
deserves attention this year: Since the beginning of 2011, Lao Rong
began to focus on the rapidly changing Arab world. During the year,
he made more than 20,000 microblog posts with more than 1 million words of
"live broadcast" information to present the huge changes in the Arab
world.

Here is a partial list:

- On September 22, Lao Rong posted a photo of a rebel
truck armed carrying a machine gun. He said that the man in the
photo was a fisherman who has invited Lao Rong to taste his fish.
However, this photo was previously taken by an Al Jazeera reporter on
March 29 in Bin Jawad (450 kilometers away from where Lao Rong said he
took the photo) and posted on the newspaper website on March 30.

- On December 13, Lao Rong posted a photo of a man named
Jamal Mustafa Tunally who was killed on August 10. The man was said
to be from Bab Al Azaiya and got on the battlefield with three kids.
However, this photo was found to be taken by the Reuters reporter Goran
Tomasevic on September 17. That reporter provided no details on the
person in the photo.

- On May 22, Lao Rong showed a photo of an AK-47
semi-automatic rifle. Lao Rong said that he purchased this weapon as
soon as he landed in Libya. Since Lao Rong was still in Hong Kong
making his travel arrangements on May 17, the purchase must be later than
that date. The same photo was found in a flickr album belonging to
someone else with a filming date of April 23.

- Lao Rong posted a photo of a man waving a Libyan
national flag on May 22. He wrote: "I asked him if I could take a
photo and he said no problem." This same photo was found in a flickr
album belonging to someone else with a filming date of March 9.

- Lao Rong entered Libya in mid-May and posted a large
number of photos from the frontlines. This photo of a child waving a
national flag was accompanied by the caption: "Child, the world is yours!
Please value it! We shall meet again." This same photo was
posted by the flickr user "live2Tripoli" on March 30.

- On June 3, Lao Rong posted a photo of a man firing a
machine gun. He wrote: "I hope him: 'Brother, this steel plate is
useless.' He said: 'I know. This steel plate is an attitude.'
Then he disappeared in the frontline. I was not able to find him
again." On June 3, the Telegraph published a story with this same
photo credited to Reuters. So was Lao Rong working as a photographer
for Reuters?

- Lao Rong posted a photo of a bullet-ridden car windows
which he said he rented. This photo was taken by the Reuters
photographer Zohra Bensemra.

When confronted with these questions about his
reporting, Lao Rong called his critics "Fifty Cent Gangers" who hate
freedom and democracy. Why Lao Rong so popular as a microblogger?
Because people want a simple story about freedom and democracy that they
can digest and believe. By comparison, the reports filed by genuine
reporters like Rose Luqiu were less clear due to the wartime conditions.

Why would Lao Rong file these fictional news reports?
The speculation is that Lao Rong, who is a jade/precious stone dealer by
trade, wants a big audience in order to publicize/sell his wares.

The front page of Hong Kong's top selling newspaper
Oriental Daily carried a story about the TVB serial drama <When Heaven
Burns>.

(Oriental
Daily) Yesterday a number of mainland video websites (such
as 56, PPS and PPTV) received instruction from the State Administration
of Radio, Film and Television that the Hong Kong TVB serial drama <When
Heaven Burns> had to be removed immediately. This is the first
Chinese-language television drama that was banned in almost 20 years.

There are various speculations about the reason for
the ban. According to some, this drama contained certain
references to the June 4 incident and this has triggered discussion
among mainland Internet users. According to others, the drama
contained a sub-plot about collusion between businessmen and government
officials, which would be sensitive given the current Wukan/Haimen mass
incidents. TVB received notice from its licensed distributors
about the ban yesterday, and they speculate that it may be the violence
and gore that the ban (note: the story contained a sub-plot involving
cannibalism).

<When Heaven Burns> is scheduled to run 30 chapters,
and it has reached chapter 24 so far. The show will continue to
run in Hong Kong.

Another reason reported in
Apple Daily is that an election campaign in the television show
actually showed FLG banners in the background. One banner said:
"Thoroughly dissolve the Chinese Communists."

<When Heaven Burns> is an extraordinary phenomenon in
Hong Kong. It has been getting poor television ratings, as the core
audience of housewives stayed away in droves due to the cannibalism as
well as the chronological re-arrangements of the story (that is, the story
jumps back and forth instead of following a linear timeline).
However, it has been getting rave reviews from the culturati and young
people.

Among the most memorable scenes in <When Heaven Burns>
is this one (see YouTube).
Here is the transcription:

Female: What does rock 'n roll represent?

Male #1: You take a look at this world of ours.
You take a look at what our city looks like. Other than the word
"Money", we no longer know how to distinguish between right and wrong,
between black and white. Everyone of us have been conditioned by
the environment such that we seem to come out of the same mold. We
like to eat the same kind of food, we like the same television programs,
we support the same political position, we follow a way of life based
upon birth-ageing-illness-death. This city is dying, you know?
(The preceding sentence is delivered in English).

Male #2: Even today people still ask me: What is the
spirit of rock 'n roll? I have been answering this question for
more than 30 years. In retrospect, it has always been the same few
words that are not hard to say. Independent spirit. Resist
the establishment. Freedom. Love. Moving ahead
courageously. Actually, it is not just rock 'n roll.
Shouldn't we be like that as humans?

[On a personal note, it should be noted that the
character in <When Heaven Burns> played by actor Chen Hao (nickname
"Housewife killer" for his popularity among housewives) is named Song
Yilang, which is identical to my name. This character was
described as immoral (he ate his best friend), deceptive (he courted a
rich woman whom he did not love), violent (he is a Thai-style boxer with
a tattoo on his back) and calculating (he is a professional
speculator).

Now my name is very uncommon among Chinese people.
There are not many people with family name Song, and the given name
Yilang is almost unheard of. So people tell me that they think
that the scriptwriter probably used my name deliberately. For what
reason? People think that since <When Heaven Burns> began filming
in 2009, it must be related to the bestselling novel <Small Reunions>.
The novel was written by the late authoress Eileen Chang, for whom I am
the literary executor. So maybe the scriptwriter was expressing
his dissatisfaction with me for publishing that book. But that is
just speculation. Besides there isn't much that I (or anyone) can
do about a name in a fictional drama, which carries the standard
disclaimer that any resemblance to real events/persons is sheer
coincidence. In any case, according to the published synopsis of
the final chapters, Song Yilang turned out to be a good guy who found
redemption.]

In <On Revolution>, I said that different people want
different kinds of freedom. In <On Democracy>, I said that
democracy/rule-of-law is a negotiation process. No matter how much
Christmas is discounted, the gifts won't be for nothing. So I am
going to start my negotiations now.

First of all, as a member of the culturati, I ask to
be able to write more freely in the new year. I have not said this
as XX freedom or YY freedom, because those two terms may make you
subconsciously afraid and wary. Even though those freedoms are
guaranteed under the constitution, they have not been implemented.
At the same time, I ask on behalf of my colleagues -- media workers also
need some freedom of press. The press has been strictly
controlled. Also there are my friends in the film industry.
You cannot understand their pain and sorrow. Everybody is
conducting cultural activities like as if they are stepping through a
minefield. If they step on a mine, they are blown to pieces; if
they want to avoid the mines, they have to tread slowly and indirectly.

These freedoms are the trends of the times. You
have previously made promises for them. I know that you must have
studied the case of Soviet Russia. You believe that the breakdown
of Soviet Russia was largely due to Gorbachev opening up the press as
well as following the constitution to return the highest powers from the
Party to the people's delegates. Therefore, you become especially
cautious about the press and constitutional politics.

But the times have changed. Modern information
communication has rendered censorship useless. The restriction on
cultural activities makes it impossible for China to influence
literature and cinema on a global basis or for us culturati to raise our
heads up proud. At the same time, China does not have any media
with global influence. Many things just cannot be bought with
money. Cultural prosperity is actually the least costly to attain.
The lesser the restrictions, the great the prosperity. But if you
insist that there are no restrictions on cultural activities in China,
you are being disingenuous. In the new year, I earnestly ask the
authorities to be let culture, publishing, press and cinema be freer.

If this can be done, then I personally make these
promises in the freer cultural environment: I will not try to settle old
scores; I will look ahead; I will not discuss the sensitive issues in
history; I will not discuss or criticize the senior-level groups or
their families and their relevant interests; I will only criticize and
comment on current social issues. It would be better for all if
the culturati and the authorities can both take a step back and observe
a pre-determined bottom line in order to create more space.

But if things do not improve in two or three years, I
will personally attend or stand outside the annual Writers Association
and China Federation of Literary and Art Circles meetings to protest.
This effort may be like an ant trying to rock a tree, but this is what I
can do. Of course, I will go alone and I will not incite my
readers. I will not exploit others to pad up my resumť. At
the same time, I believe in the character of our generation and
therefore I believe that these freedoms will arrive sooner or later.
I am only hoping that they will arrive sooner. I believe that I
can write even better. I don't want to wait until I am old, so
please let me be there in time.

These are my personal demands in my area of
professional expertise. In this very useful discussion, I feel
that we should pay more attention to how to get there as opposed to what
it should be. It is said that a man can only make one wish at one
time. My wish has been used up. As for the other issues
(fairness, justice, law, political reform and everything else), they
will have to be brought up by those friends who need them.
Although I don't think that freedom is the top priority for everyone, I
believe that nobody wants to be constantly fearful and anxious.

I wish that those without money can become wealthy in
a just society, and those who with money will not still feel that they
are inferior to foreigners in spite of their money. I wish that
all young people this Christmas can fearlessly discuss revolution,
reform, and democracy; stay concerned about the future of our nation;
regard it as our brothers and sisters. Politics is not dirty,
politics is not uninteresting, politics is not dangerous.
Dangerous, uninteresting or dirty politics are not true politics.
Chinese medicine, gunpowder, silk and pandas cannot win us glory; the
100 LV bags of the county mayor's wife cannot win respect for our
people. I wish the ruling party can march boldly ahead and become
immortal in the history annals that they write themselves.

The Top 10 News Quotations 2011A person's words reflect the inner being of that person. To a
certain extent, the popular quotations in a country reflect the
situation or sentiment of that country. China.com Finance and
Baidu News now jointly present the top 10 news quotations of the year
2011. From these ten quotations, we can see the various anxieties,
conflicts, confusion and helplessness of the Chinese people at this
time, plus the various clashes and subversions of values, the doubts
about the credibility of the government, the skepticism about the
comments coming from public servants, the uncertainties about our
present era ...

Here are the top 10 news quotations:
(1) I don't care whether you believe it or not; in any case, I believe
it
(2) Stabbing eight times in a row is a repetitious piano-playing
movement
(3) Housing prices are rising because people have too much money
(4) I am giving up everything in order to elope with XX
(5) My dad is the law of the state
(6) So we are cheating you
(7) 10,000 yuan is no big deal
(8) Children are good because they are praised
(9) It is not rape if a condom was used
(10) There are good kids among the second-generation wealthy people

But it is also a reflection of this era that several of
these so-called top 10 news quotations are sensationalistic fabrications.
Here are the detailed analyses.

(2) "Stabbling eight times in a row is a
repetitious piano-playing movement"

Yao Jiajin was a third-year student at the Xian
Academy of Music. On the night of October 20, 2010, Yao was
driving when his car hit a pedestrian. He got out of his car and
stabbed the pedestrian eight times in succession in order to cover up
his crime. He was apprehended by citizens as he tried to flee.
On May 20, 2011, the Shaanxi Provincial Supreme People's Court upheld
the death sentence on Yao Jiajin. On the morning of June 7, Yao
Jiajin was executed.

Yao's lawyer Lu Gang defended his client by saying:
"He did not do it for revenge. What was he doing? Actually,
when I am unhappy, I play the piano to release my anger.
Therefore, when he encountered this unpleasant situation in which he saw
that the person whom he injured was memorizing his license plate, he
stabbed her in an action akin to smashing his piano."

[The quotation was correct, but the
speaker was not Yao's lawyer Lu Gang. Instead, it was the
criminologist Li Meijin of the China People's Public Security
University. Li Meijin was interviewed on CCTV and her words were
distorted. Here is the interview with Li Meijin after that CCTV
interview raised an Internet public opinion storm against her.

Question: Some media think that your
comments did not consider the "compatibility of technical discussion
with the rule-of-law." This was the reason for causing
this storm. You agree with this point in your blog.
Li: The circumstances are very important. On that day, I was not
analyzing "what the sentence for Yao Jiajin ought to be." I was
directly analyzing why he did what he did. This gave the wrong
impression that I was trying to justify his act. The difference
between the perspective of an expert and that of the masses led to this
wrong impression.

Question: Why did you think the
Internet users want to say?
Li: I understand now that they want me to say that Yao Jiajin was evil
incarnate for whom execution was not enough to satisfy the public.
They want me to say that, but I absolutely cannot say that.

Question: How is that?
Li: I must remain rational. It is up to the court to decide
whether he should be executed or not. I did not study this case,
so I cannot make that judgment. If they want that judgment, they
should interview an expert in crime law. I am a crime
psychologist. Under the circumstances, I cannot say whether he
should be executed or not. That would be a trial by public
opinion. As an expert, I cannot make a judgment on behalf of
public opinion.

Question: What did you think CCTV want
you to explain?
Li: I thought that CCTV was interested in just how a well-educated
person can viciously stab the victim so many times in a completely
unpremeditated fashion. We want to see how his background would
indicate this so that we can avoid it in future. I think that was
the question of interest, and I wanted to provide an explanation.

Question: How did you decide that the
eight thrusts of the knife was related to piano-playing?
Li: This was a movement that he trained regularly for. In the case
of Yao Jiajin, if he really wanted to kill the victim, he could have
done it with one thrust of the knife and then ran away. Why did he
stab her eight times? My explanation was that it was related to
his piano-playing. He fluently repeated what he was regularly
familiar with doing due to his piano-playing background. I was not
saying that "Yao Jiajin regarded murdering someone as the same as
playing the piano." That is faulty reasoning.

Question: Will you continue to comment
on legal cases to the public?
Li: My comment on the case of Yao Jiajin was very controversial,
including the many vicious abusive comments. I really thought
about never commenting on any more cases. But my research and
professional ethics tell me that I would be derelict in my duty if I do
not share my insight in those cases with the public. I believe
that my research will be beneficial to many people, including my critics
and their families. My research deserves to be respected, not for
me personally but for our society as a whole.]

(3) "Housing prices are rising because people have too
much money"

"Why do those recent university graduates want to
borrow money from their families to buy houses? Because if they
don't buy this year, the prices will rise next year." The National
Communist Party Political Consultative Conference member and China
Merchants Bank chairman Ma Weihua said that rising housing prices are a
monetary issue, because the people have too much money on hand. Ma
Weihua recommended that the banks should expand their financial
management services and use financial products with varying
risks/returns to draw in the surplus liquid cash in the hands of the
people and away from buying houses.

[Recently, the report on CPPCC member
Ma Weihua's comments was given the headline "Housing prices are rising
because people have too much money" at a certain website. The
report was widely published on other websites as well. As a
result, Ma Weihua was criticized by many Internet users.

Ma Weihua said that what he meant was
that the high inflation rate (including rising housing prices) was due
to a surplus in liquid cash. This surplus arose not because people
have too much money. On the contrary, most Chinese people still do
not earn much. Under these circumstances, a high inflation rate is
particularly bad for the people and therefore ways have to found to hold
inflation down.

This particular report also asserted
that "Ma Weihua recommended that banks should expand their financial
management services and use financial products with varying
risks/returns to draw in the surplus liquid cash in the hands of the
people away from buying houses."

Ma Weihua emphasized again today that
the banks need to have good financial products so that the people can
have higher returns on investment on their savings. At the same
time, those products can absorb the surplus liquid cash in order to hold
down inflation and defend the interests of the people.

Ma Weihua said that he was trying to
speak on behalf of the people. He found it regrettable that the
story was "mis-headlined" and created misunderstanding among Internet
users.

In summary: Ma Weihua said that there
was too much liquid cash around, leading to problems such as rising
housing prices. He did not say that people have too much money on
hand. Most of the surplus liquid cash belong to
corporations/organizations, not to individual citizens. The
original reporter lacked the professional knowledge to know the
distinction.]

(5) "My dad is the law of the state"

In June 2011, the mother-in-law of Yonghe deputy
county mayor Feng Shuanggui passed away in a traffic accident. The
local resident Liu Wen followed local custom and set off firecrackers to
ward off evil. This made the Feng family unhappy. On the
evening after the funeral, Feng Shuanggui's wife Kong Yan, his son Feng
Yuan and his brother-in-law Kang Long entered the home of Liu Yuan, and
stabbed him. During the assault, Feng Yuan kept declaring: "My dad
is the county mayor. In Yonghe my father is the law of the state."

[A reporter from China Internet News
traveled to Yonghe county to interview the various parties.

According to the Sinopec gas station
manager Ren Gensheng, there was a traffic accident at their exit at
13:23 on May 10 during which the mother-in-law of deputy county mayor
Feng Shuanggui died. At around 18:00, Liu Wen who ran the
construction project at the site followed local custom and set off
firecrackers to ward off evil. "The intent was to hope that no
more accident should occur." But when the Feng family heard about
it, they might have misunderstood.

According to a source at the Yonghe
county public security bureau, at around 22:00 on May 17, deputy county
mayor Feng Shuanggui's relatives: Kang Yan, Feng Yuan, Kang Long and
Kang Li dressed in mourning garb and holding ceremonial wine, joss
sticks and paper went to Liu Wen's hope. They charged inside Liu's
home. Kang Long took out a knife and stabbed Liu Wen in the leg,
while also punching and kicking him. Kang Li grabbed Liu Wen by
the hair and ear and cursed him out. Kang Yan slapped Liu Wen
twice in the face. Feng Yuan kicked Liu Wen in the head and face,
and kicked him a few more times. Kang Long and Feng Yuan
vandalized Liu Wen's television set, computer and other items.

With respect to the key question of
whether Feng Yuan said: "My dad is the county mayor. In Yonghe my
father is the law of the state," the Linfen city Communist Party
Disciplinary Committee leader said that Feng Yuan said "I did not say
this" while Liu Wen said that Feng did not say it.

With respect to the other question
whether the police refused to process the case and whether Feng
Shuanggui interfered, the Linfen City Communist Party Disciplinary
Committee leader said that their investigation showed that (1) Feng Shuanggui
did not direct his relatives to attack Liu Wen; (2) Feng Shuanggui did
not pressure the police; (3) the police became involved 30 minutes after
the attack and arrested the four suspects.

So where did the headline quotation
come from? It came from an un-sourced Internet post.]

Question: A revolution does not have to be violent.
The Velvet Revolution is the perfect model.

Answer: I do not believe that a Velvet
Revolution can take place in China. Never mind the international
situation. Never mind the fact that the entire population of
Czechoslovakia is only one half the size of the population of the city
of Beijing. To believe in the Velvet Revolution requires that you
believe in the character of the people, the tolerance of the authorities
and the leadership of the intellectuals. The Velvet Revolution
took place as the result of these three groups coming together. I
do not believe that these groups exist in China. You cannot cite
this perfect revolution to rebut the possibly imperfect reforms.

I understand that many intellectuals and scholars in
China are enamored of the Velvet Revolution. They are even
secretly moved by the idea that they may play the role of Havel.
But whether there is a violent revolution or a non-violent one, the role
of the intellectuals will be far less than they imagine, never mind a
leadership role. The poorer the quality of the citizens, the
lesser the importance of the intellectuals. You cannot avoid
facing the realities of China by using mere words to describe the
perfect democracy, the perfect freedom and the perfect human rights.
Reform and democracy are negotiation processes. You cannot expect
the rulers to read some books and become suddenly moved to hand
everything over to you. You cannot wish for the Velvet Revolution
every day so that you can play the role of Havel. You cannot
expect that every Chinese citizen will receive a voting ballot and that
their votes cannot be bought. Even today, there is no universal
suffrage in the Czech Republic.

Therefore my viewpoints are very simple. We
don't want to see a violent revolution. A Velvet Revolution will
not take place in China. Perfect democracy will not appear in
China. We can only go after one small thing at a time. There
is no point in frustrating oneself by dreaming about democracy and
freedom in our study rooms. Reform is the best answer.

Question: You conclude that the quality of the Chinese
people is too poor so that they are not fit for democracy. Did the
government pay you a stability-maintenance fee to say that?

Answer: I don't know how you come to this conclusion,
because I thought that I made it very plain to see. It is not a
question whether democracy is suitable or not, because it will arrive
sooner or later. The quality of the citizens will not prevent
democracy from arriving, but it can determine its quality. Nobody
wants a Rwanda-style democracy, but that is not a genuine democracy.
Sometimes it arrives slowly, sometimes it arrives abruptly.
Sometimes it arrives neither thoroughly nor completely. Sometimes
it is neither American nor European in form. But it will arrive at
some point in your lifetime. When you look back, you may
find it to be somewhat dull and unexciting.

Question: You are saying that everything depends
on the favors of the rulers and not on the efforts of the people
themselves?

Answer: Of course, it is important to pressure the
rulers. But regrettably, the cooperation of the rulers is even
more important. This requires luck and character. At this
time, the various social classes are divided and alienated from each
other. For example, no matter how much a deal you make out of the
high-speed train collision, the rulers are complacent. They feel
that this is a civil affair which time will take care of itself.
The families of the ruling class may be completely indifferent to this
matter. They care only about who rises or falls, their relative
ages, the arrangements for certain positions, etc. Regardless of
public opinion pressure, the matter will still fade away.

Of course, they may be unconcerned about public
opinion pressure. For example, if you have a billion yuan in your
account, you won't be too bothered to lose 1,000 yuan. The
intellectuals may regard something as very important, but they are
magnifying the supposed anxieties of the rulers who may not have
considered that issue at all. Many intellectuals that all problems
arise from the system, such that everything will be solved if the system
is changed. They may be well-intentioned and righteous. But
they are assuming that the peasants and the workers share the same
knowledge as they do, and that everybody needs to think the same way.
But the reality is more disheartening.

The struggles take place in remote places. Over
the years, I have visited more than one hundred county cities of all
types. They are not especially isolated and/or impoverished.
I have spoken to people from all walks of life in those places.
Their quest for democracy and freedom is not as urgent as intellectuals
imagine. They hate the powers-that-be and corruption mostly
because they wish that they (or their own relatives) have been the
beneficiaries instead; they don't care about restricting or supervising
the authorities; they pick up the vocabulary about democracy and freedom
only when ill luck befell them and they need to petition their causes.
If the government pays them enough, they will be satisfied.

Any social conflict that can be solved by money is not
a social conflict. Intellectuals typically think that these
emergency invocation of the words (e.g. democracy, freedom) means that
there is a universal demand, thus constituting a consensus. I do
not believe that there can be a perfect revolution in a largely divided
country. You may feel that I have been the tamed by the rulers and
therefore you want to change the rulers. But this is how it has
been so far for the last generation or two. Fortunately, when I
speak to their children, I find that the Internet and various media have
more or less opened their eyes. Therefore I am not pessimistic.

Today, the Chinese Communist Party has 80 million
members. 300 million persons live in families which have members
with party membership. The Party is no longer just a political
party or a class. Therefore, many of the flaws of the Communist
Party are also the flaws of the people. I believe that a very
strong one-party-system is the same as a no-party system. When the
party organization reaches a certain size, it becomes the people itself.
So the issue is not to deal with the Communist Party this way or that.
The Communist Party is just a name. The system is just a name.
If you change the people, everything changes. Therefore, it is
more important to seek improvement. Rule of law, education,
culture ... there are the basics.

Question: If the revolution comes, what role should
influential intellectuals play?

Answer: The intellectuals should be like a blade of
grass sitting on top of a wall. But this has to be a blade of
grass that bends in the opposite direction of the wind.
Intellectuals need their own sense of justice, but they cannot have a
position. The more influential intellectuals must not have fixed
positions. Whenever they see one side getting too powerful, they
must stand with the other side. They must never trust any
propositions. They must never follow any ideology. They must
treat all revolutionaries as swindlers. They must never believe in
any promises. They must do their best to ensure that no side gets
annihilated so that the other sides become absolutely powerful. If
there is a revolution in China in the future, I will stand with the side
which is weak and vulnerable. If this side should grow strong, I
will stand with its opponents. I am willing to sacrifice my
personal views to ensure the co-existence of different groups.
This is everything that you should be seeking for.

Recently, I went back and reviewed many previous
questions. The terms "revolution" and "reform" were frequently
brought up. The media like to ask about those questions, but those
questions-and-answers are rarely reported. No matter what I have
to say, it is most likely (80% likelihood) not published. So in
this first essay to answer readers' questions, I will give my views on
the term "revolution." Here I have consolidated the questions from
readers and domestic/foreign media outlets for me to answer.

Question: Recently mass incidents have been taking
place regularly in China. Do you think that China needs a
revolution?

Answer: In a nation with a complex social structure,
especially in the eastern world, the ultimate winner in a revolution
must be a vicious, ruthless person. Frankly, "revolution" is a
seemingly straightforward and rousing word which does not require too
much explanation. But revolution may not be the best option for
China. First of all, a revolution usually begins with a demand,
which is most commonly anti-corruption. But this demand isn't
going to go too far. "Freedom" or "justice" do not have any
markets. Except for certain artists or journalists, if you ask
people in the street whether they feel free, most of them will answer in
the affirmative; if you ask them whether they want justice, they will
typically say that injustice is usually something that happens to other
persons and they are happy just as long as it doesn't happen to them.
Most people do not come across injustice personally, so it is hard to
get them to seek justice and freedom for other people. In China,
it is hard to find a collective demand. This is not a matter of
need versus no-need, but one of possible versus not-possible. My
view is that it is neither possible nor necessary. But if you ask
me whether China needs stronger reforms, I will say surely.

Question: Why don't you go out and lead an uprising?

Answer: You must be joking. Even if I agree with
the idea of revolution and lead a sizeable uprising, the authorities can
just cut off the Internet and mobile telephone signals. I don't
think that the government even needs to send out their
stability-maintenance forces. Those angry people who were trying
to chat on QQ or play online games or watch serial dramas will wipe us
out. You better not hope that you can make microblog posts to
support me. You will begin to hate me if you cannot go
microblogging for three days.

Question: Does that mean that China does not need
democracy or freedom?

Answer: This is a misunderstanding.
Intellectuals frequently link democracy and freedom together.
Especially for the Chinese, the result of democracy is frequently lack
of freedom. Most Chinese people do not link freedom with
publication, news, literature, speech, election or politics.
Instead, they think of freedom from public morality so that those who
have no social connections can freely make noise, freely cross the
streets, freely spit in public; those who have some social connections
can freely break the rules and regulations, freely take advantage of
legal loopholes, freely commit misdeeds. Good democracy
necessarily bring about social social progress as well as rule of law.
This will make certain people who don't care about cultural freedom feel
less free. Thus many Chinese people who feel very uneasy when they
arrive in the developed countries in Europe and America. Democracy
and freedom do not have to be linked together. I think that the
Chinese people have their own unique definition for freedom, and freedom
is not influential in China.

Question: I think that the ills in China are too
deep-reaching so that reform is useless. Only a revolution can
make this society better.

Answer: Let us suppose that the revolution was not
suppressed. Of course, that would be impossible. Let us
imagine this revolution in mid-stage. The students, the masses,
the elites, the intellectuals, the peasants and the workers are going to
be able to reach a consensus. There is another group that we have
ignored so far: the impoverished people of which there are 250 million
currently. You don't usually notice their existence, because they
never use the Internet. Since the revolution has reached
mid-stage, new leaders must have emerged. A revolution without any
leaders is doomed to fail. The White Lotus
is a good example. But the leader of the revolution is not going
to be the good-natured, benevolent character that you imagine as you sit
in front of your computer right now. Such a revolutionary leader
is most likely going to be dictatorial, domineering, egotistical,
presumptuous, venomous and incendiary. Yes, this sounds familiar
but the Chinese people fall for this kind of style. This society
is used to seeing the villains take charge and the good folks get
slaughtered. The leaders who are preferred by the young culturati
won't last a week. The more educated one is, the less likely one
is to submit to a leader and so one is likely to quit the revolution
earlier on. As the elites leave, the composition of the
revolutionaries changes. No matter how nice-sounding the
revolution slogans were at first, it will ultimately revert to a single
word: money.

To put it gently, the point is to give us back our
money. To put it not so gently, this is equality of wealth as
enforced through plundering. You should not assume that because I
feel that I have some money, I would be willing to go along because I
don't want to lose it. In the mighty torrent of the revolution, if
you own an Apple iPhone, or you drive a motorcycle, or you know how to
use the Internet, or you read newspapers regularly, or you eat at KFC,
you are the rich criminal who will be the target of the revolution.
The person who has 100 million yuan in assets is safer than the person
who has only 10,000 yuan in assets. The former can immigrate
overseas and pick up his New York Times delivered to his home door, but
the latter (mostly middle-class and petty bourgeois) is stuck here.
In the various political campaigns of the past, people went after each
other. Today, people recognize only money, so many people are well
trained to go after each other for money. The Chinese people know
how to settle accounts, and this will necessarily lead to suppression.

Any revolution takes time. China is such a large
country, without even mentioning chaos everywhere, civil wars among
warlords or the power vacuum. After a chaotic five or ten years,
the people will surely yearn for an iron-fisted dictator to restore
social order and clean house. By comparison, it matters little if
we have to go back from the very open "Let The Hundred Flowers Bloom"
back to reading People's Daily. Besides all our assumptions are
based upon the nationalization of the military (note: instead of the
military being under the control of the Communist Party as it is right
now). Therefore these are merely fantasies. If we are even
pessimistic in our fantasies, we can forget about carrying it out
altogether.

Question: How do you view Egypt and Libya?

Answer: Egypt. Libya. Ruled by a dictator
for decades. Not many cities. A single incident became the
explosive point. A single public square for delivering speeches.
The revolution can succeed. In China, there is no specific
individual who is the target of a revolution. There are many
cities. The population is huge. All sorts of extraordinary
disasters have occurred already, so that people's G-spots have become
de-sensitized, never mind any point of explosion. Even if the
social conflicts intensify tens times as much, even if you have ten
Havels speechifying in ten cities and even if the authorities don't act,
those speeches will eventually end up being sponsored by a lozenge
manufacturer to be given at the Haidian Opera House.

Of course, all of the above is a waste of time.
The key point is that most Chinese people don't care about the lives of
others. They only holler when they get abused themselves.
They will never manage to unify.

Question: Your viewpoints sound very much like those
of a Fifty Cent Gang member. Have you been bought off by the
government? Why can't we elect a chairman on a one-person-one-vote
basis?

Answer. In this world where it is either
this-or-that, either black-or-white, either right-or-wrong, either a
pro-western-traitor-or-a-government-paid-fifty-cent-gang-member, the
term 'revolution' is very powerful but it will be very harmful if
operationalized. Many people think that the urgent task right now
in China is to elect a chairman on a one-person-one-vote basis.
Actually, this is not our most urgent need. On the contrary,
one-person-one-vote will ultimately result in the victory of the
Communist Party. Who has more money than the Party? 50
billion yuan will buy 500 million votes. If that doesn't work,
they can up the ante to 500 billion yuan. They collect a trillion
yuan in taxes each year. How can you challenge them in terms of
money?

You think that the friends around you are fair and
independent. Such people will add up to a few hundred thousand
votes. Your wise and knowledgeable candidate will be lucky to get
100,000 votes.

The only person who can compete with the Communist
Party is Ma Huateng, because he can pop up a window whenever you enter
the QQ service to declare: "Anyone who votes for Ma Huateng will earn
500 in QQ currency!" He may be able to gain 200 million votes.
But the problem is that Ma Huateng will surely join the Communist Party
first.

Democracy is a complex, difficult but inevitable
social process. It is not attained through simple words such as
"revolution," "universal suffrage," "multi-party system," "down with
XX," etc. If you have never cared about the judiciary or
publishing, then what is the point of caring about universal suffrage?
The only reason is that it is easier to talk about. This is no
different from the people who only speak of F1 when it comes to car
racing, or only the World Cup when it comes to soccer.

Question: I think that revolution and democracy in
China are only matters of timing. When do you think is the right
timing?

Answer: Revolution and democracy are two terms.
These two terms are completely different. A revolution gives no
guarantee for democracy. We proved this already. History
gave China an opportunity, and our current situation is the result of
the choice of our forebears. Today, China is the least likely
nation in the world to have a revolution. At the same time, China
is the nation which needs reform the most in the world. If you
insist on asking me about the best timing for revolution in China, I can
only say that when Chinese car drivers know to turn off their high beam
lights when they pass each other, we can safely proceed with the
revolution.

Such a country does not need any revolution.
When the civic quality and educational level of the citizens reach a
certain standard, everything will happen naturally. Perhaps you
will live to see magnificent changes in his China, or perhaps you will
still see only the same deadlock up to your death. No matter what,
you must always remember to turn off your high beam light when you pass
another car. Maybe our children will be able to attain everything
that our forebears sought for sooner.

As Christian Bale approached an impromptu checkpoint
leading to this tiny village in eastern China, four men blocking the
narrow path started marching toward him in menacing unison.

"I am here to see Chen Guangcheng," the "Dark Knight"
actor said and I translated, with correspondent Stan Grant and cameraman
Brad Olson next to us.

"Go away!" the plainclothes guards barked, pushing us
back.

Amid the scuffling and yelling, dozens more guards in
olive-green, military-style overcoats -- and two gray minivans --
emerged from the other side of the checkpoint, all coming toward us.

"Why can I not visit this free man?" Bale asked
repeatedly, only to receive punches from guards aiming for his small
camera as they tried to drag him away from the rest of us.

As we retreated, I recognized the ringleader -- the
same burly man who had hurled rocks at the CNN team 10 months earlier to
force us out of the same location.

A precarious scene ensued Thursday as one of the gray
minivans chased our car at high speed on bumpy country roads for some 40
minutes.

When the dust settled, we counted a broken car, a
damaged camera -- and a Hollywood star disappointed at -- but not
shocked by -- his failure to see a personal hero.

"What I really wanted to do was to meet the man, shake
his hand and say what an inspiration he is," Bale said.

The man, 40-year-old Chen Guangcheng, has been
confined to his home along with his wife, mother and daughter, and
watched around the clock by dozens of guards since he was released from
prison in September 2010. A local court had sentenced him to more than
four years in prison for damaging property and disrupting traffic in a
protest.

His supporters maintain authorities used trumped-up
charges to silence Chen, a blind, self-taught lawyer who rose to fame in
the late 1990s thanks to his legal advocacy for what he called victims
of abusive practices by China's family-planning officials.

Bale first learned about Chen through news reports,
including our coverage in February, when he was in China filming "The
Flowers of War," a wartime drama set in 1930s Nanjing in which he plays
a mortician trying to save a group of schoolgirls from the clutches
invading Japanese soldiers.

The injustice faced by the activist and his family
stirred such strong emotions in Bale that, upon hearing his impending
return to China to promote the movie, he decided to do something unusual
to raise the international awareness of Chen and thereby to turn up the
heat on the Chinese government.

"This doesn't come naturally to me, this is not what I
actually enjoy -- it isn't about me," he explained during our eight-hour
drive from Beijing to the eastern city of Linyi, where Chen's village is
located. "But this was just a situation that said I can't look the other
way."

Known to be a media-shy celebrity, Bale reached out to
CNN and invited us to join him on his journey to visit Chen.

In the car, he lamented the American public's lack of
knowledge on Chen's case, despite senior U.S. officials' increasingly
vocal support for his freedom. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and
Gary Locke, the American ambassador to China, have both championed
Chen's cause.

Bale appeared a little surprised to learn that
Relativity Media, which produced his 2010 Oscar-winning "The Fighter"
and recently filmed a comedy in Linyi, was accused by activists of
cozying up to the same officials who ordered Chen's detention and
torture. The studio has issued a statement denying the allegation.

Although China's state media has largely ignored the
story, Chen's plight has spread online and outraged a growing number of
Chinese "netizens." Many have tried to visit Chen, and activists say
nearly all would-be visitors have been turned back, often violently, by
plainclothes police and local thugs.

"I'm not brave doing this," Bale emphasized. "The
local people who are standing up to the authorities, who are visiting
Chen and his family and getting beaten or detained, I want to support
them."

As our car sped toward Beijing in the dark, Bale
wondered aloud if he would never be allowed back -- a prospect he is
prepared to accept -- even as "The Flowers of War" became China's
official entry into next year's Academy Awards.

"Really, what else can I do to help Chen?" he kept
asking as the clock struck midnight, with his latest movie -- partially
funded by the state -- about to open nationwide in China.

As one might expect, this story was not covered by the
mainstream media in China, but the microbloggers were free to discuss it.
One microblog post drew a lot of attention. This comes from the
director Lu Chuan, who directed the movie about the Nanjing massacre <City
of Life and Death>. Lu Chuan wrote: "Bale~In the dialog
between civilian martial artists and Batman in Dongshiku (Linyi), he was
knocked down by the body force of our side as well as being kicked
innumerable times. The photo is preserved here for the record."

This photo was quickly found to have been previously
posted on April 30, 2011 with respect to <Batman: The Dark Knight Rises 3>
(see link).
Others say that the April 30, 2011 report was actually from the earlier
movie <Rescue Dawn> in which Bale portrayed an American pilot captured by
the Vietnamese and the entertainment reporter misused it in April 2011 for
the <Batman: The Dark Knight Rises 3> report.

Lu Chuan's original post is gone and he added the
following: "Bale's day trip to Shandong was real; the photo of Bale after
a beating was fake. Because there are truths and untruths,
verification is required. Because the photo was found to be fake, it
was deleted. Why are the Fifty Gang Membes who are rushing over here
heaping scorn? You are embarrassing yourselves in front of the
world. You are not defending truth in journalism. You are
aiding and abetting the authorities."

[006] Journalistic
(Non-)Professionalism In The Microblog Age (12/14/2011)

(Dianzizheng's
blog) Here are three microblog posts about the school bus
accident in Shouxian townxhip, Fengxian county, Xuzhou city, Jiangsu
province.

The first appeared on the official microblog of the
newspaper Southern Metropolis Daily, based in Guangzhou city, Guangdong
province. The time of posting was 22:07, December 12, 2011.

(translation)
[Major school bus incident in Jiangsu province] As confirmed by
the newspaper @Dushichenbao, there was a major traffic disaster in
Shouxian, Jiangsu at around 18:00 hours. A Shouxian elementary
school bus carrying 71 persons fell into the river while swerving to
avoid an electric motorcycle. The local authorities have
dispatched more than 10 police cars, more than 20 ambulances as well as
fire engines and cranes for rescue operations. According to an
Internet user, the number of deaths is possibly more than 40.
Dushichenbao said that the number of deaths is uncertain. The
photo comes from the Internet user Jiazi300.

[Statistics: This post was forwarded 95,899 times.
The Southern Metropolis Daily microblog is followed by 1,671,833
persons.]

So who is this Internet user Jiazi300?

Jiazi300 says that he lives in Fuzhou city, Fujian
province. He has 478 followers.

Here is the post made by Jiazi300at 21:42, December
12, 2011. At 22:07, Southern Metropolis Daily picked up the
information in this post.

(translation)
At around 18:00, there was a major traffic disaster in Shouxian
township, Jiangsu province. The Shouxian elementary school bus
carried 71 students in grades 1 through 6. As of this moment, the
number of deaths is more than 40. The toll is continuing to rise.
More than 10 police cars, more than 20 ambulances, 2 fire engines, 1
traffic police car, 1 heavy crane and more than 10 other government
official cars. The incident is reportedly caused by the bus driver
swerving to avoid two electric motorcycles so that the bus slid into the
river.

[Statistics: This post was forwarded 5427 times]

Because of the attention that the Southern Metropolis
Daily microblog post drew to Jiazi300, the latter apparently felt the need
to issue a statement.

(translation)
Statement: Dear Internet user friends, I thank you for your
attention to the case of the Shouxian elementary school bus. I am
not personally at the scene. I am merely forwarding the
information in the first instant. The casualty figures still need
to be confirmed. I thank you for your attention.

[Statistics: This post was made at 23:08
December 12, 2011. It was forwarded a total of 4 times]

Now all those official media outlet microblogs that
posted and forwarded the information from Jiazi300 should reflect: Did you
actually visit Jiazi300's microblog? Did you observe that the person
is based in Fuzhou (Fujian) which is not near Shouxian (Jiangsu)?
Did you observe that Jiazi300 is actually a marketing operation?
That being the case, it means that Jiazi300 is obtaining his information
from some local Shouxian source. So who gave him that photo?
Who told him that 71 persons were on the bus? How did he know that
more than 40 children were dead? If you can't answer these
questions, do you have any business forwarding such information?

A primary school bus overturned and fell into a ditch
Monday afternoon in east China's Jiangsu Province, which had 47 students
on board. At least 15 students were killed and eight others injured.

The accident happened at
about 5:40 p.m., in Shouxian township in Fengxian county in the city of
Xuzhou when the bus was trying to avoid a pedicab, according to Fengxian
county government.

The bus belongs to a
primary school in Shouxian township. The bus, which has a capacity load
of 52, had 47 students on board, when it left school.

When the bus got nearby
Zhanghoutun village it still had 29 students on board. The exact cause
of the accident is under investigation.

Officials from local
educational, public security and health departments have rushed to the
scene.

Everything in Jiazi300's
post was wrong: there were not 71 passengers; the number of deaths was not
more than 40; the bus fell into a shallow ditch, not a river; the bus
swerved to avoid a motorized rickshaw, not two electric motorcycles.
Nevertheless, at least 1.6 million microblog users got that erroneous
information via Southern Metropolis Daily.

The Chengdu police published 17 secret markings used by burglars.
Even the CCTV news channel reported on this story.

Here is the list of markings:

Plan action

Four to five likely units
to burglarize

Very wealthy

Danger, avoid

Beware of vicious dog

Many police around

Beware of the neighbors

Alarm present

Easy to be seen
by chance

Nobody guarding the place

Uninhabitated

Single female inhabitant

One child, two women, one man

Someone here works in a
government department

Nothing valuable to steal

No need to go in

Burglarized already

Recently, the Jinniu precinct of the Chengdu City
Public Security Bureau dispatched its officers to post more than 200
"Police memos" to remind people to erase these "burglar markings" if
spotted in front of their homes and to call the police.

According to police officer Yang Jundong of the
Beixiangzi Police Station, "These markings are usually made on the
bottom of the door, on the wall or on the tree in front of the door.
They are made by scouting burglars to prepare their colleagues.
Yang has been working as an officer in the Beixiangzi Police Station for
two years already. Although he has not come across an actual case,
residents told him about these "mysterious markings" in front of their
doors.

Yang Jundong said that the idea of coming up with a
list of secret markings was inspired by an Internet post. A
certain police officer with the Jinniu Precinct saw this Internet post
and forwarded it to the Prevention Unit of the Chengdu City Public
Security Bureau. Based upon the work experiences of the many
police officers at the Prevention Unit, this list of 17 "secret codes"
was prepared.

"Certain burglaries are committed by crime gangs who
have division of labor. That is to say, some gang members are
scouts who leave markings for the other gang members who actually break
in and steal things. These markings represent the 'secret code'
among burglars." Yang Jundong reminded residents that they should
call the police as soon as they found such markings by their front
doors, and the police will come and record the evidence.

The police officer also reminded people that the
meaning of each marking is not constant. Each gang has its own set
of codes, based upon what the gang members are accustomed to using.
The codes for one gang are not necessarily understood by another gang.

So the source of the information is a certain
"Internet post." It is not certain what that Internet post is, but
here is one at Baidu:

Burglars usually use pencils or ballpoint pens to make
markings on prospective targets. The following are four
explanations of these markings:

(1)
Circles: indicator of wealth, using a scale of 1-5 (5 circles meaning
highest wealth level); writing an X on top of the circle means that
there is no money here
Triangles: Number of persons at home at a certain time
More circles and fewer triangles mean a better prospective target

(2)
√: Someone usually at home during the day; returning home at regular
times
X: No one at home during the day; returning home at irregular times
ζ: Occasionally someone at home during the day, returning home at
irregular times

(3) Overseas information
"X": An ideal target
Two internally linked rectangles: The householder is alert, so be
careful
Five small circles linked together into one big circle: Very wealth
household
A "Y" inside a square: Only elderly and children at home
Four slanted lines on the outline of a house: Already burglarized

(4) A triangle inside a square: This household has
installed an alarm system
Big "D": Dangerous and not worth the risk

So it appears that the Chengdu police are culling
Internet information and they have never actually come across real
situations in the course of duty.

On January 11, a Guiyang Forum user posted a list of
markings which burglars are suspected of using in recent years in
certain Chinese cities.

'+-' means that there is someone home during the day
but not at night
'-+' means that there is no one home during the day but someone is home
at night
A circle with a dot inside means single person or renter
'...' means three-member household
A star indicates a target
√ means the place has already been entered
'X' means not a target

Yesterday the Crime Investigation Divisions officer
Shao at the Wudang Public Security Bureau told our reporter: At this
time, the police has not yet come across any specific case in which
these special markings were confirmed to be involved.

Yesterday our reporter went to the Shangshangju
Properties Development company, and saw seven mysterious markings.
Most of them are written on the walls next to the front entrances of
apartment units. Four of them are formed by "+" and "-".
Three of them only have an "A". The apartment unit owners met and
determined that a "+" on top and "-" on bottom means that someone is
home during the day but not at night; a "-" on top and a "+" on bottom
means that no one is home during the day but someone is home at night.

Based upon previously solved case, the police reminds
the citizens: Certain burglars will enter into residence compounds under
the pretext of distributing flyers or conducting interior decoration.
They typically leave flyers on the front doors and return several days
later to check. If the flyer is not removed, it means that the
place is unoccupied. The mysterious markings can serve the same
purpose. If the marking is not erased, it means that the place is
unoccupied and can be looted.

In summary, these simple markings may be the secret
code of certain burglars. However, there cannot be a nationwide
code system as such. If too many people know about it, someone is
going to post it on the Internet and the whole world knows. So it
is more likely that each burglar gang will have its own code system.
Furthermore, the codes are unlikely to be so complicated (e.g. "one
child, two women, one man"; "someone here works in a government
department") and cumbersome (e.g. consider the amount of surveillance
time needed to ascertain that there is "one child, two women, one man"
with "someone home during the day but nobody home at night"?)

It was improper for the Chengdu police to use an
Internet post with certain sarcastic elements as a police bulletin.
This is misleading as well as panic-inducing. The rest of the
media all erred in publicizing a local police bulletin as a national
news story without conducting any investigation or verification.

"BFA 'Audi man' beats cleaner to death." This
was the headline at a certain website about the tragic story that took
place on the Beijing Film Academy campus on the afternoon of December 5,
2011. A male student quarreled with a campus cleaner over a
parking issue, causing the cleaner to die as a result of physical
assault.

Afterwards, public opinion indisputably stood on the
side of the deceased. The most frequently forwarded comment on
microblogs was: "The Film Academy has degenerated into a garbage dump
for second-generation rich children to enhance their fortunes."
According to information, the 43-year-old cleaner was a honest, decent
man. Students recalled seeing him ask for noodle soup at the
cafeteria. These recollections will surely increase public anger
at the murderer and cast strong doubts about the school's assertion that
it was a fight between two persons.

It is natural to be sympathetic to the weak and
vulnerable. It may be said that the difference in social status of
these two persons may be a hidden cause for this clash. Whether
the garbage tricycle blocked the Audi car or vice versa, the clash would
not occur if either party made a concession. During the process,
it is possible that the "Audi man" behaved arrogantly to offend the
decent cleaner; or the cleaner disliked the "Audi man" and refused to
back off.

The rights and wrongs of this case should be left for
the law to judge. Here I want to say that we need not exaggerate
the contribution of the identities of the two persons in this incident,
thus inflating the case of "the strong bullying the weak." At the
very least, the incident is reduced to a physical contest as soon
physical contact was initiated. In the end, it was the cleaner who
fell to the ground. But who could deny that it was possible that
the "Audi man" could be the one down on the ground? There was a
50%-50% probability.

But if the cleaner killed the "Audi man," why would
the public opinion be? Would we say that "justice triumphed"?
Or "second-generation rich children" deserve to die (and it is still
uncertain whether the "Audi man" is a "second-generation rich child")?
If so, we must regret to say that we no longer have any sense of rule of
law or justice and we only have blatant rich-versus-poor. Such
being the case, we will decide right-versus-wrong solely by appearance
(e.g. dress code, means of transportation, etc). So if you dress
sharply, you must be a rotten egg; if you wear rags, you must represent
justice. Is this a normal way of regarding the world? Isn't
this too simplistic and rash?

Let us give another example. On the day before
this latest tragedy, there was a car chase between a BMW and a
Mercedes-Benz in Shanghai. The persons involved stopped and
fought, leading to the death of the Benz driver. Those parties did
not know each other, but they came across each other during their
respective journeys by chance. It is plausible that they did not
yield to each other because they had the same social status.
According to some people, this incident should be a case of "a duel
among the rich" (or even "dog-eat-dog")? So where is the humanity
in this?

The dualistic analysis of these incidents reveal the
anxiety and uneasiness of this era. On one hand, many people
become arrogant and overbearing because they possess wealth. On
the other hand, many other people are extremely hostile to the rich and
powerful people (they don't necessarily hate money itself and they may
be just jealous). These attitudes are obviously not normal in a
civilized society with the rule of law. Nevertheless, they show
that it is a serious problem about how to deal with the issues of wealth
and justice. This is not going to be solved by preaching alone.
Apart from educating people, it is necessary to deal with social justice
and fairness.

Mass psychology is often the projection and reflection
of social reality. Whenever certain mass psychological attitudes
prevail, it reflects certain corresponding social realities. Even
as we feel sorry for the death of the cleaner, we should reflect on the
roots of the anger that many people are feeling. As one Internet
user wrote well: On this day, the world not only lost a son, a father, a
brother and an unknown ordinary person, but the world now has a "young
and sorrowful soul." In this world, we should have more
forgiveness and tolerance.

On the afternoon of November 24, the Beijing police
published a bulletin on their microblog about a case of a microblogger
issuing an open threat against another person and making a "live
broadcast" of taking actual action. The suspect named Yan became
the first person to be detained by the police for taking such action.
The case was first reported at the Qianlong website under the heading
<Beijing police uncover the first case of using the Internet to threaten
the personal safety of others>. The reporting was basically
objective.

Qianlong Beijing November 24 news: A difference of
opinion on the Internet led to one person wanting to beat up another
person while broadcasting the action live on microblog.
Recently, the Beijing police unearthed the first case of using
microblogs to threaten the personal safety of another person while
"live broadcasting" the process. The suspect named Yan is the
first person to be detained by the police for taking such action.

In mid-November the citizen named Wu called the
police to say that someone appeared to be making real-time microblog
posts about an assault on Wu. The other party indicated that he
was going to Wu's home to beat him up. But Wu was out of home
that day and avoided the disaster. However, Wu was worried about
his personal safety and claimed that his normal life is being
seriously affected. After receiving the call, the police
gathered the evidence and quickly identified the suspect as an
individual named Yan.

On November 11, the police found Yan. During
interrogation, Yan said that he pays frequent attention to the current
affairs essays on the Internet. Recently he has been
dissatisfied with some of Wu's comments and began to assault Wu
verbally. Wu counterattacked Yan who was angry and determined to
retaliate in real life. For that purpose, he disclosed his
revenge plan openly on the Internet and used the microblog "live
broadcast" to threaten retaliation against Wu. At this time, Yan
has been sentenced to five days of administrative detention by the
police for threatening the personal safety of another person.

This case is the first one in which the Beijing
police came across someone making public threats to another person and
using a "live broadcast" while trying to carry out that threat.
At this time, the Internet is reaching deeper into the lives of the
Internet users and has become the platform for people to express
themselves and engage in exchanges with other people. At the
same time, certain Internet users do not discipline themselves in
their comments and use personal attacks and insults to affect the
lives of others.

The public security bureau reminds the citizens that
even as the police will protect the freedom of speech of Internet
users, they will not hesitate to take firm action against those who
use the Internet platform for illegal purposes. They will purify
the environment of the Internet and maintain public safety and order
on the Internet, so that the capital city can become harmonious and
stable.

A difference of opinion? What exactly was that?
Based upon the records on that day, it is mainly directed against the
post <Any similarity is purely coincidental> that I forwarded. The
individual named Yan (nickname Jian Cui, identified by Weibo as an
artist) disagreed with the allegation in that post that Ai Weiwei was a
plagiarist. He thought that I knew nothing about art. But
whether this was plagiarism or not depends on the evidence which the
public can decide for themselves. I had forwarded the post by an
artist named Zhu living in Germany and she made a comparison of two sets
of art works as a professional artist. The Ai Weiwei-supporter Yan
got angry and wanted to take revenge on behalf of Ai Weiwei.

At 12:43 on November 6, Yan stated publicly that he
was a "frequent visitor of the Haidian district" and he intended to
"cripple Wu Fatian" on that day. He said that "he meant what he
said" and "Wu ought to go and purchase life insurance quickly."
Then he made a live broadcast of his revenge process. He told
several other persons to meet at the KFC restaurant in my residential
neighborhood. He questioned my neighbors about my whereabouts.
This process continued for three to four hours. At the time, I was
out on business nearby. Internet friends called me to pay
attention to my personal safety because Yan is taking actual action to
make an Internet dispute into a real-life confrontation. At 6pm, I
called the police. From 8pm to 12md, I was down at the police
station making my statement and providing the evidence. The police
took over the evidence, they received the surveillance videotapes and
confirmed that Yan had taken actual action and broke the law in the
process.

The police sentenced Yan to five days of detention
under Article 293 of the Amended Criminal Law Code of the People's
Republic of China for: chasing, intercepting, insulting, threatening
others. Since Yan expressed genuine remorse, the police sentenced
him to 5 days when it could have been 10 days. In posting the
bulletin, the police protected the identifies of the parties and
referred to them by their families of Yan and Wu without any further
identification characteristics.

The next day (November 25, 2011), the <Beijing News>
reporter Guo Chao filed a report which contains a lot of his own
personal viewpoints in it.

First of all, the heading was <Microblog threat "Wu
Fatian", man detained for five days." This gave the impression
that the lawbreaker merely made a threat without actual implementation.
This would cause headline readers to feel that it was unfair to punish a
person for merely exercising speech, thus leading to an outpouring of
support for freedom of speech. Besides the headline is misleading
because you may get the impression that it was "Wu Fatian" who was
detained.

Secondly, this report goes against journalistic ethics
in disclosing the name of the victim and his institution. Such is
unheard of in this kind of reporting. On my Weibo microblog, I did
not mention neither name nor institution in my comments. Even if
the police bulletin listed the detailed information, the news report
should conceal the name because journalistic ethics require that the
real name, family, occupation belief and family members of a crime
victim not be disclosed unless they have a direct bearing on the case.
However, <Beijing News> did the exact opposite. Whereas the police
did not disclose the name or institution of the victim, the reporter
learned those two pieces of information via alternate channels and
published them in this news report. Only reporter Guo Chao of
<Beijing News> did so. And since that report was forwarded via
mobile phone, my name appeared in 300,000 mobile phones. This was
how I experienced the lack of ethics that the <Southern Metropolis
Daily> showed in their coverage of the Joint Defense Force rape case.

Thirdly, the police stated the facts of the case as
Yan being upset with the comments of Wu Fatian, began personal attacks
on Wu, got counterattacked and then decided to take revenge in real
life. But the <Beijing News> distorted the situation and inserted
his personal view that "Wu Fatian's comments on the Internet drew many
criticisms from Internet users." In this case, this reporter
assumed the role of judge and rendered a verdict outside of the court.
This action is possibly being libelous.

Fourthly, the reporter added the following in his
report: At 1:39 on November 12, Wu Fatian claimed on his microblog: "I
finally installed screen capture software on my software and the
evidence for the threatening phone calls on November 6 are as follows";
at around 16:00 on November 12, he posted "I have forwarded the abusive
and threatening telephone records to the Beijing Public Security
Bureau." The aforementioned incidents had nothing whatsoever to do
with the case of Yan. However the reporter linked the two matters
together while completely ignoring the fact that those harassing
telephone calls were basically the result of Ai Weiwei publishing my
telephone number on Twitter. Those two microblog posts included
screen capture images, so there was no way that the reporter could fail
to see them. But he used these other incidents to muddle up this
case.

Fifthly, the reporter appended the interpretation of
an expert. Oddly enough, the reporter did not seek out a legal
expert for this criminal case and found a sociologist instead. The
reporter knew that this case was indefensible under the law.
However he got the sociologist to say what he really wanted to
communicate: "People now have new channels to release their pented-up
feelings. On the Internet, this becomes a standard procedure.
Catharsis, accusations and verbal abuse are nothing special on the
Internet." "Cursing people on the Internet is often less hurting
than screaming at someone in real life." He really tried hard to
make his case.

Given the facts of the case, the reporter could not
have changed his report much. But he managed to inject many
personal views as well as hurt the victim a second time by disclosing
the name and institution. He truly has no conscience! I have
always opposed Kong Qingdong for using obscene language to curse out the
<Southern People Weekly> reporter because I never curse people on my
microblog. But at this time, I suddenly understood Kong's anger.
You try to reason with these conscienceless media but they will act like
hooligans all the same!

The distortions in the <Beijing News> report led to
more rumors on the Internet. "God Bless China A" commented: "The
police detained the person for planning a crime, which goes behind the
bottom line of the law!" This deliberately muddles the distinction
between illegal actions and criminal actions in the public security
laws. The action was claimed to be "planned crime" but in reality
it was the actual implementation of an announced threat! The guy
even called others to go to the target person's home, so how can this
still be planning? Ai Weiwei's lawyer said on the Internet: "Five
days detention for making a threat on the microblog!" I ask this
lawyer: As a legal scholar, are you aware of what an actual threat is?
Have you studied Article 13 of the <Public Security Administration Penal
Code>? Did you get your legal training from a sports instructor?
It is one thing to serve as the gofer lawyer for Ai Weiwei, but you are
not a legal scholar when you ignore the facts!

Even worse, when the iFeng website carried the
<Beijing News> report, they changed the heading to <Man posting a
microblog threat against China University for Political Science and Law
associate professor "Wu Fatian" detained for five days> without using
any punctuation marks. Thus many readers read this as: "Wu Fatian"
detained for five days. And ever worse yet, iFeng posted the essay
<Liu Yiming: Should the police act as the hatchetmen for "Wu Fatian"?>
in defense of the lawbreaker. This essay twisted the facts and
made false accusations. The author Liu Yiming wrote that "Wu
Fatian" is a senior-level Fifty Cent Gang Member who frequently attack
media outlets, media workers, intellectuals and artists who act with
conscience." I received the V for verified identity within the
first week of using Weibo in April 2010, but Liu said that Wu Fatian
sought verification only after his identity was disclosed via human
flesh research. Liu said that he was falsely accused by "Wu Fatian"
for posting an untruthful essay about lawyer Xu Zhirong, Wang Xiaoshan
and others receiving bribes ranging from several hundred thousand to two
million yuan during the investigation of the death of village chief Qian
Yunhui. He said: "People like Wu Fatian, Fang Zhouzi, Si Manan and
others frequently use rumors to attack others but the police ignore
their illegal actions." Finally he suggested that the Beijing
police should cancel Yan's detention and apologize to him.

Previously this person Liu Yiming just had his user ID
canceled by the Sina Weibo administrators for spreading the rumor about
"Kong Qingdong ordered his assistant to assassinate Xu Lai of <Beijing
News>". Liu Yiming's real name is Xiong Zhongjun. In August
2009, he was sentenced to 10 days of detention for fabricating and
spreading the rumor that the defendant Wu Bin in the May 7 Hangzhou
traffic accident was a stand-in. He was also detained in Shenzhen
for 81 days for spreading Falun Gong progapganda. This Epoch Times
writer whose essay was logically confused and baseless got published at
Voice of China and iFeng, for whom basic fairness and objectivity have
gone missing.

The Phoenix TV Information Channel turned the whole
affair into an entertainment event using the special issue title <Microblog
professor Wu Fatian> and vilified me from their high moral ground.
They set up a vote for their users. Without presenting the facts
and using instead Liu Yiming's rumor-filled essay as background, the
vote included three obviously misleading choices: "Certain comments by
Wu Fatian caused the incident and should be investigated by the
judiciary in a fair manner"; "Internet comments are sometimes overstated
and should not treated as seriously as real-life comments"; "More is
needed for the judiciary to deal with Internet violence." If
democracy is about voting, then is this deliberately manipulated vote
true democracy?

Finally I need to mention the Voice of America.
According to the m4 website, VOA tried to defend Yan by interviewing
lawyer Mo Xiaoping. Without understanding even the most
rudimentary facts of the case, Mo spoke with fervor and assurance: "It
is too severe to detain someone for scolding others on the Internet."
Was that naked personal threat just an Internet quarrel? In South
Carolina state (USA), a man who threatened to kill current president
Barack Obama, former president George W. Bush and other senior
government officials found himself sentenced to 5 years in prison.
So isn't 5 days of detention light by comparison?

The motto on my microblog is: "Let the law-abiding
citizens not be lonely; let the lawbreakers be afraid." Instead
the manipulation by certain media turned that motto into: "Let the
law-abiding citizens continue to be lonely; let the lawbreakers act
without restraint."

[002] The Case Of Wu Fatian - Part
2 (12/3/2011) There are plenty of so-called Fifty Cent Gang
Members, so how does the person known as Wu Fatian gain so much more
notoriety? The following blog post written by Wu Fatian (real name Wu
Danhong) lists his encounters with a number of prominent 'liberal' bloggers.

(Wu
Fatian's blog) The mud that came out after I pulled out the
carrot. November 24, 2011.

Last year during the affair over Tang Jun's fake
academic credentials, his Pacific Western University fellow student Yu
Jinyong came out to openly defend him. I pulled out the carrot and
the mud came out. I found out that Yu Jinyong had faked his Peking
University doctorate. In addition, I exposed his other deceptions.
Later on, the <Wealthy People> magazine deputy chief editor and Hehan
Province Finance, Politics and Law University associate professor Wang
Leng went to visit Yu Jinyong and openly defended him too. I got
curious and I researched Wang Leng. Thus I pulled the out the
carrot and the mud came out. It turned out that Wang Leng's
bachelor thesis plagiarized my article written many years ago with 80%
duplication. Wang Leng publicly acknowledged: "I plagiarized my
bachelor thesis and I also plagiarized my masters thesis. In order
not to plagiarize again, I will not write any more essays in the next
five years. I will also inform my colleagues that I decline to be
evaluated to become full professor. You can continue to counsel
me." (see <Southern Metropolis Daily> news report)

In early October 2011, I received a tip about the
Xianghe County party secretary Yang Wenhua grabbing land from the
peasants. I wanted to get to the bottom of this matter. I
pulled out the carrot and the mud came out. From Baidu, I learned
that the wife of party secretary Yang Wenhua is the celebrated poetess
Zhao Lihua. (Note: Zhao Lihua is well-known as a 'liberal'/'democratic'
defender of the land rights of peasants against illegal seizure by the
authorities). The boss of the real estate development company involved
in the case is a frequent guest of secretary Yang as well as an honored
guest of Zhao Lihua's Pear Blossom Festival event. Based upon the
evidence that I provided, Tencent published a special page <We must
question Zhao Lihua just like we question Guo Meimei Baby>. Zhao
Lihua got upset and wrote that she wanted to "target me for
elimination."

At that moment, the blogger Yi Tian came out and
joined Zhao Lihua in making personal attacks against me. Renmin
University professor Zhang Ming praised Zhao Lihua and Yi Tian as
"female knights." Yi Tian spread smears against me. I wanted
to go to court against her but I was frustrated in not knowing her real
name (the Weibo administrators refused to cooperate). I had to
search on the Internet myself. I pulled out the carrot and the mud
came out. I learned that Yi Tian's real name is He Nan and she had
posted at Tianya that she was a so-called "independent publisher" with a
high school degree and she was hiring Internet writers at the base
salary of 800 yuan per month.

When I published the information on Yi Tian, I
explained that all my information came from open channels coming from
herself. I also use XX to hide the crucial information (such as
her telephone number and address). The Anhui province Lanqiao Law
Office lawyer Lu Xiangdong volunteered to become her lawyer and said
that he wanted to complain to the Beijing Public Security Bureau that I
was illegally publishing the private information about a citizen.
But that crime is determined by the person/organization obtaining
private information in the course of duty and selling and/or illegally
providing that information to others. I did not obtain that
information in the course of duty. The information was published
by herself. I had also hidden the crucial information in order to
protect her privacy. And I did not sell or illegally provide the
information to others. So I encouraged Lu Xiangdong to make his
complaint for that alleged crime, which should cause a chuckle at the
Beijing Public Security Bureau.

But because this lawyer Lu Xiangdong had made a fool
of himself many times before and did not act like a lawyer, I got
curious and I researched him on Baidu. Once again I pulled out the
carrot and the mud came out. On June 21, 2008, the Ma'anshan
Justice Department published Lu Xiangdong's article <The Structure of
Entrapment Investigation>. This article made extensive
reproductions from my 2001 article <On Entrapment Investigation>
published in <The Study of Law and Business>. For example, I was
the first scholar to propose the notion of objective versus subjective
standards and his article plagiarized extensively from me. The
footnotes and annotations were about other articles without any mention
about mine. In 2009, Lu Xiangdong received the Fourth Annual
Ma'anshan Lawyers' Forum excellent article award for his article, which
also received the "provincial lawyers' excellent article" award.
Lawyer Yu, you plagiarized a seven-year-old article and so you seem
unable to follow what is current.

I came to the microblogosphere for fun. My
bachelor degree major was criminal prosecution law, and my doctorate
major was evidentiary law. Therefore I am obsessed with the truth.
I have been microblogging for more than a year, and I am interested in
exposing lies. In the case of defending the rights of Zhang
Yuanyang, I sought to find the truth; in the case of the fake doctor Yu
Jinyong, I wanted truth in academics; in the case of the Rumor Busting
Alliance, I wanted to seek the truth behind social incidents; in the
case of the fake democrats and liberals, I want to seek the truth about
democracy and the rule of law. I never thought about who might be
offended. I only demand of myself as a legalist to seek the truth.
I want things to be how they should be!

I pulled out the carrot and the mud came out. I
spoke based solely upon the evidence in my hands. Meanwhile my
opponents toss out false labels. You should be able to see this
clearly.

The editor of a Chinese
state-run newspaper and three others have been inundated with calls and
texts after artist Ai Weiwei put their numbers online in protest at
things they have written about him. Ai, 54, who spent 81 days in police
detention earlier this year, and has been fighting what he calls
politically motivated tax evasion charges, posted their mobile numbers
on his Twitter account.

Hu Xijin, editor of the Global Times; Wang Wen, a
reporter at the paper; Wu Fatian, a professor at the China University of
Political Science and Law; and blogger Si Manan have since received
hundreds of calls. "This is no doubt one of his ways of expressing his
political mood," Hu responded on Sina's weibo. "But I don't think this
is a good method. As a celebrity, Ai Weiwei's behavior has an impact on
social morale. He should tread carefully."

Ai has accused the four of trying to damage his
reputation through blog posts and articles they wrote during his
detention and after he was freed in June. "They try to convince young
people I'm in some kind of a conspiracy with the West," he said. "But
they never question why police detained me without any legal process."
The Global Times has published several editorials about Ai. The latest
questioned the level of domestic support for the artist.

Wu, who also blogs and is widely regarded as having
pro-government views, said he was upset by the calls and texts, many
from abroad.

Here is a telephone conversation provided by Wu Fatian
and purported by him to be conducted with Ai Weiwei (TelephoneCall_20111203.3ga).

Ever since Fatman Ai published my mobile telephone
number to overseas people, I have received several hundred harassing
telephone calls and text messages. This continued for one week
until I was forced to switch to a new number. 80% of the harassing
calls came from overseas, mostly USA, Canada and Australia. The
text messages are mostly in English or Chinese, but some are in Japanese
or French. It looks like the water is deep. There are quite
a few from inside China, mostly brain-damaged people who scream abusive
words. Many of them came from the same telephone numbers. I
am firmly opposed to anyone counter-harassing these overseas hired hands
and Chinese brain-damaged people. Rational people take rational
actions!

Here is a selection of the screen captures of the text
messages.

10:31 Need a number of fifty-cent dogs, price ...
10:50 I am Caonima
10:50 I am you okay
10:50 I am Caonima
10:50 I am Caonima

@Yuguotian: An Internet user just relayed the mobile telephone numbers
of the so-called Four Big Fifty-Cent Gang Members: Hu Xijin, Si Manan,
Wu Fatian and Wang Wen. The person who sent them to me probably
expects me to send a message to "criticize" them so that they can
"rectify their errors." Frankly, both leftists and rightists
have their freedom of speech. It is inappropriate to send text
messages to criticize them. I also refuse to disseminate their
private information. Internet exchange should be harmonious.
@Wu Fatian: So someone organized the attacks while assuming the
responsibility of designating people are Fifty Cent Gang Members.
Ho ho, that was some kind of effort!

Who is Wu Fatian (real name Wu Danhong)? What did
he do to deserve all this?

Finland has Angry Birds, but China has angry people.
They donít fling themselves at pigsí houses, but instead throw around
insults on Sina Weibo, a Twitter-like service in China.

One of their favorite targets is Wu Danhong, 33, an assistant professor
at China University of Political Science and Law, who writes online
under the name of "Wu Fatian." He has been nicknamed by netizens "the
chief representative of the 50 cent party," a pejorative unofficial term
for Internet commentators hired by the government to post comments that
favor the government policies and who are reportedly paid 5 mao (50
cents in yuan) a post.

Some netizens believe Wu always speaks for the government, and he
usually comes to the defense of the authorities when there is negative
news.

So when Wu posted online on October 29 about the illegal demolition of
his family house in his hometown, which he described as "the destruction
of private property," his critics were cheerful. They left comments like
"as a veteran fighter for Communism, you should sacrifice your life for
the revolution, never mind your house," "this is karma for being a
member of the 50 cent party" and the ironic "well, you have to put
yourself into the governmentís shoes."

But Wu doesnít seem angered by the comments. "It doesnít really matter,"
Wu told the Global Times. "You donít need to explain to the people who
understand you, and it's also useless to explain to the people who donít
understand you."

A day later, he wrote on Weibo that "I am a victim of online verbal
violence. I experienced domestic violence when I was a child as my
parents were very strict with me; now I have been under attack online
for years. I can say I am very strong now, both physically and
mentally."

Closed down

Yet itís not only other netizens who are uncomfortable with Wuís words.
On August 30, he suddenly found himself unable to post or comment on
Weibo. He complained to the service manager, and he was told that it is
probably because his posts "dealt too much with current politics." A day
later, he was shocked to find out the number of his Weibo fans was
rapidly declining and he was "forbidden" to follow others.

Wu has a history of controversial posting, although he has a
conventional background. He was born in a farming family in Yiwu,
Zhejiang Province. After getting a doctoral degree from the Law School
of Renmin University of China, he joined the China University of
Political Science and Law.

Wu describes himself as a humble person in real life, who doesnít want
to offend other peopleís sense of face. But online he seems like a
different person, more aggressive and direct.

He first became active on the Internet in 1998 when he started posting
comments on a legal BBS. Since then the Internet has been an important
part of his life. He set up his own blog in 2005. "My writings have
circled around one idea, or one hope ó that one day those who observe
the law will not be alone and isolated, that those who break the law
will live in fear, and that the law enforcement process can promise fair
trials and give us a society in which justice prevails," he once wrote.

He registered on Weibo in April 2010, writing that "the rise of the
microblog has revolutionary significance for freedom of speech in
China." But he soon became involved with a war of words. After village
leader and local whistle blower Qian Yunhui from Zhejiang Province was
crushed by a truck in December 2010, Wu found himself under fire for
backing the local governmentís assertion that Qianís death had just been
"an accident."

He also got involved in an online brawl with Zhao Lihua, a poet from
Hebei Province. Wu pointed out that Zhao is the wife the Party Committee
Secretary in Xianghe county in Hebei, and accused her of accumulating
fashionable bags and designer clothes from her husbandís ill-gotten
gains. Zhao was so upset that she made a list of all those who had come
under attack from Wu, and challenged him to meet in person to argue.

Zhao isnít the only one whoís been called out by Wu. Yao Bo, a public
affairs commentator, also invited Wu to "settle a spat in public" on
October 7 at a gas station. Wu agreed to show up. But, no doubt to the
disappointment of potential spectators, there was no fight, either
physical or verbal. Instead a police car was summoned to the scene in
case of an emergency.

Wu also has a lot of supporters, with more than 85,000 followers on
Weibo. In response to the attacks on Wu, they show support by telling
him "You did nothing wrong but telling the truth." "Itís very common to
have different opinions on Weibo. It is a free platform to express
yourself. I speak the truth. I want to serve the truth, not to fight,"
he said.

Rumor-quashing efforts

Wu is also famous as the founder of an "anti-rumor alliance." The group,
formed on May 18, has busted over 100 online rumors. Its slogan is
"serving the truth." However, an editorial in the reform-minded Southern
Metropolis Daily accused the group of "selectively busting rumors" and
"only busting popular rumors, but not official ones" in order to
"correct the guidance of public opinion."

In response to these accusations, Wu said the group
cannot bust all the rumors. Instead they can only choose those that are
widespread and most harmful if not stopped. "There are not many official
rumors as the government understands that spreading rumors will make
them lose credibility and cause public panic. Most of the rumors are
popular ones that are very harmful to the society," Wu said.

Wu said debating with netizens has become part of his daily life. "To
deal with people who have different opinions from you, I love to quote
one of Chinese scholar Hu Xiís sayings. ĎForgiveness is more important
than freedom.í"